Apparently, no response does. — Vera Mont
Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, — Sir2u
No it isn't. — Bartricks
But anyway, that's an absurd 'metaethical' claim, whereas my question is a normative one. — Bartricks
Rookie mistake. — Bartricks
Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks — Sir2u
Me: "which way to the city centre?"
You: "A city centre is a collection of trees" — Bartricks
I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. — Bartricks
o explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"
If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from? — Sir2u
You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one". — Sir2u
Here in lies the contention. You're calling it a fact. But for others, it's a point of view.Perhaps they don't want you to wake them up to this fact. Perhaps they liked their ignorance. — schopenhauer1
Here's how our exchange is going: — Bartricks
Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else? — Bartricks
Do you agree that we ought not do so either, then? — Bartricks
It's literally in your own post. That is the first question you asked is basically: "Should he introduce sentient life if he has the power to do so or not?"
Obviously he should not. What do you mean by "ought to do neither"? How do you not do nothing when you are doing nothing? LOL. — Cobra
So, do you also agree that we ought not procreate too, then? — Bartricks
At the behest of the likes of Nagel and Rawls, I'll mention here the Archimedian point which argues that there is indeed a rational observer whose standpoint can provide an objective account of what's happening in the world.Satisfaction can only truly happen by transcending one's nature of willing. According to him [Schopenhauer], this requires denying the Will and becoming an ascetic along the lines of a Jainist or something of that nature. The ultimate fate would be to starve oneself to death peacefully. — schopenhauer1
Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.